Though we've discussed in class the reality of films and of documentaries, I agree with this statement, even in the case of documentaries. We've established that many times, even "reality"-film makers alter or stage the 'reality' they portray on film. To me, even the candid camera catching people doing exactly what they'd do any other time, completely unaware of the filming, shows us this "fantasy world" Morris refers to. If you think about it, any time you're watching film, it's a recreation of the world. Even if it's not a reenactment, per se, it is still not the exact moment that was captured; it's a replay of it. In this sense, it's not real life at all. This may be too nit-picky of an opinion on reality of films, but when considering the statement above my Errol Morris, I think it's applicable.
Besides the recreating fact, any person making a movie is doing it for others to see. When others see it, the filmmaker wants them to take something out of it, and they create the movie they want in order for it to convey what they want. In this way as well, the movie creates a sort of "fantasy world" that may contain truth, or be even completely true, but is still a creation of the filmmaker. Does that make sense?
I understand what you mean and I agree. It is the same idea with other medias. Like a book may be about a certain time or incident but may not be a recreation but that does not mean there is no truth in words. It is like that book about Vietnam, "The Things They Carried" the man that wrote it was in Vietnam but the actual stories themselves were not completely what happened but similar enough that it is a great representation of the people in that time.
ReplyDeleteI take your point, Kelly, and I think it's accurate for films in general. I think Morris' sense here of 'fantasy world' may be a bit stronger; I was struck by his emphasis in the article on creating a 'dream world' for his audience, and I think he really means 'like a dream'. But this is in deep tension with what we normally think of as a 'documentary' -- we already know our dreams aren't true, so why try to shape your purportedly 'true' film like them?? (Remember what we've seen of him: he uses Philip Glass's dreamy music, reenactments, sets, etc.)
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that no movie, even documentaries, can be considered reality. We cannot capture real life on film and there is no way to replay "reality." I never thought about it this way, but I like it. I don't think you're being too picky. It's an interesting point.
ReplyDelete